Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 18 - Shloka (Verse) 11

न हि देहभृता (टिप्पणी प0 879.1) शक्यं त्यक्तुं कर्माण्यशेषतः -- देहधारी अर्थात् देहके साथ तादात्म्य रखनेवाले मनुष्योंके द्वारा कर्मोंका सर्वथा त्याग होना सम्भव नहीं है क्योंकि शरीर प्रकृतिका कार्य है और प्रकृति स्वतः क्रियाशील है। अतः शरीरके साथ तादात्म्य (एकता) रखनेवाला क्रियासे रहित कैसे हो सकता है हाँ? यह हो सकता है कि मनुष्य यज्ञ? दान? तप? तीर्थ आदि कर्मोंको छोड़ दे परन्तु वह खानापीना? चलनाफिरना? आनाजाना? उठनाबैठना? सोनाजागना आदि आवश्यक शारीरिक क्रियाओंको कैसे छोड़ सकता हैदूसरी बात? भीतरसे कर्मोंका सम्बन्ध छोड़ना ही वास्तवमें छोड़ना है। बाहरसे सम्बन्ध नहीं छोड़ा जा सकता। यदि बाहरसे सम्बन्ध छोड़ भी दिया जाय तो वह कबतक छूटा रहेगा जैसे कोई समाधि लगा ले तो उस समय बाहरकी क्रियाओंका सम्बन्ध छूट जाता है। परन्तु समाधि भी एक क्रिया है? एक कर्म है क्योंकि इसमें प्रकृतिजन्य कारणशरीरका सम्बन्ध रहता है। इसलिये समाधिसे भी व्युत्थान होता है।कोई भी देहधारी मनुष्य कर्मोंका स्वरूपसे सम्बन्धविच्छेद नहीं कर सकता (गीता 3। 5)। कर्मोंका आरम्भ किये बिना? निष्कर्मता (योगनिष्ठा) प्राप्त नहीं होती और कर्मोंका त्याग करनेमात्रसे सिद्धि (सांख्यनिष्ठा) भी प्राप्त नहीं होती (गीता 3। 4)।मार्मिक बातपुरुष (चेतन) सदा निर्विकार और एकरस रहनेवाला है परन्तु प्रकृति विकारी और सदा परिवर्तनशील है। जिसमें अच्छी रीतिसे क्रियाशीलता हो? उसको प्रकृति कहते हैं -- प्रकर्षेण करणं (भावे ल्युट्) इति प्रकृतिः।उस प्रकृतिके कार्य शरीरके साथ जबतक पुरुष अपना सम्बन्ध (तादात्म्य) मानता रहेगा? तबतक वह कर्मोंका सर्वथा त्याग कर ही नहीं सकता। कारण कि शरीरमें अहंताममता होनेके कारण मनुष्य शरीरसे होनेवाली प्रत्येक क्रियाको अपनी क्रिया मानता है? इसलिये वह कभी किसी अवस्थामें भी क्रियारहित नहीं हो सकता।दूसरी बात? केवल पुरुषने ही प्रकृतिके साथ अपना सम्बन्ध जोड़ा है। प्रकृतिने पुरुषके साथ सम्बन्ध नहीं जोड़ा है। जहाँ विवेक रहता है? वहाँ पुरुषने विवेककी उपेक्षा करके प्रकृतिसे सम्बन्धकी सद्भावना कर ली अर्थात् सम्बन्धको सत्य मान लिया। सम्बन्धको सत्य माननेसे ही बन्धन हुआ है। वह सम्बन्ध दो तरहका होता है -- अपनेको शरीर मानना और शरीरको अपना मानना। अपनेको शरीर माननेसे अहंता और शरीरको अपना माननेसे ममता होती है। इस अहंताममतारूप सम्बन्धका घनिष्ठ होना ही देहधारीका स्वरूप है। ऐसा देहधारी मनुष्य कर्मोंको सर्वथा नहीं छोड़ सकता।यस्तु (टिप्पणी प0 879.2) कर्मफलत्यागी स त्यागीत्यभिधीयते -- जो किसी भी कर्म और फलके साथ अपना सम्बन्ध नहीं रखता? वही त्यागी है। जबतक मनुष्य कुशलअकुशलके साथ? अच्छेमन्देके साथ अपना सम्बन्ध रखता है? तबतक वह त्यागी नहीं है।यह पुरुष जिस प्राकृत क्रिया और पदार्थको अपना मानता है? उसमें उसकी प्रियता हो जाती है। उसी,प्रियताका नाम है -- आसक्ति। यह आसक्ति ही वर्तमानके कर्मोंको लेकर कर्मासक्ति और भविष्यमें मिलनेवाले फलकी इच्छाको लेकर फलासक्ति कहलाती है। जब मनुष्य फलत्यागका उद्देश्य बना लेता है? तब उसके सब कर्म संसारके हितके लिये होने लगते हैं? अपने लिये नहीं। कारण कि उसको यह बात अच्छी तरहसे समझमें आ जाती है कि कर्म करनेकी सबकीसब सामग्री संसारसे मिली है और संसारकी ही है? अपनी नहीं। इन कर्मोंका भी आदि और अन्त होता है तथा उनका फल भी उत्पन्न और नष्ट होनेवाला होता है परन्तु स्वयं सदा निर्विकार रहता है न उत्पन्न होता है? न नष्ट होता है और न कभी विकृत ही होता है। ऐसा विवेक होनेपर फलेच्छाका त्याग सुगमतासे हो जाता है। फलका त्याग करनेमें उस विवेककी मनुष्यमें कभी अभिमान भी नहीं आता क्योंकि कर्म और उसका फल -- दोनों ही अपनेसे प्रतिक्षण वियुक्त हो रहे हैं अतः उनके साथ हमारा सम्बन्ध वास्तवमें है ही कहाँ इसीलिये भगवान् कहते हैं कि जो कर्मफलका त्यागी है? वही त्यागी कहा जाता है।निर्विकारका विकारी कर्मफलके साथ सम्बन्ध कभी था नहीं? है नहीं? हो सकता नहीं और होनेकी सम्भावना भी नहीं है। केवल अविवेकके कारण सम्बन्ध माना हुआ था। उस अविवेकके मिटनेसे मनुष्यकी अभिधा अर्थात् उसका नाम त्यागी हो जाता है -- स त्यागीत्यभिधीयते। माने हुए सम्बन्धके विषयमें दृष्टान्तरूपसे एक बात कही जाती है। एक व्यक्ति घरपरिवारको छोड़कर सच्चे हृदयसे साधुसंन्यासी हो जाता है तो उसके बाद घरवालोंकी कितनी ही उन्नति अथवा अवनति हो जाय अथवा सबकेसब मर जायँ? उनका नामोनिशान भी न रहे? तो भी उसपर कोई असर नहीं पड़ता। इसमें विचार करें कि उस व्यक्तिका परिवारके साथ जो सम्बन्ध था? वह दोनों तरफसे माना हुआ था अर्थात् वह परिवारको अपना मानता था और परिवार उसको अपना मानता था। परन्तु पुरुष और प्रकृतिका सम्बन्ध केवल पुरुषकी तरफसे माना हुआ है? प्रकृतिकी तरफसे माना हुआ नहीं जब दोनों तरफसे माना हुआ (व्यक्ति और परिवारका) सम्बन्ध भी एक तरफसे छोड़नेपर छूट जाता है? तब केवल एक तरफसे माना हुआ (पुरुष और प्रकृतिका) सम्बन्ध छोड़नेपर छूट जाय? इसमें कहना ही क्या है सम्बन्ध -- पूर्वश्लोकमें कहा गया कि कर्मफलका त्याग करनेवाला ही वास्तवमें त्यागी है। अगर मनुष्य कर्मफलका त्याग न करे तो क्या होता है -- इसे आगेके श्लोकमें बताते हैं।

परंतु जो पुरुष कर्माधिकारी है और शरीरमें आत्माभिमान रखनेवाला होनेके कारण देहधारी अज्ञानी है? आत्मविषयक कर्तृत्वज्ञान नष्ट न होनेके कारण जो मैं करता हूँ ऐसी निश्चित बुद्धिवाला है उससे कर्मका अशेष त्याग होना असम्भव होनेके कारण? उसका कर्मफलत्यागके सहित विहित कर्मोंके अनुष्ठानमें ही अधिकार है? उनके त्यागमें नहीं। यह अभिप्राय दिखलानेके लिये कहते हैं --, देहधारीदेहको धारण करे सो देहधारी? इस व्युत्पत्तिके अनुसार शरीरमें आत्माभिमान रखनेवाला देहभृत् कहा जाता है? विवेकी नहीं। क्योंकि वेदाविनाशिनम् इत्यादि श्लोकोंसे वह ( विवेकी ) कर्तापनके अधिकारसे अलग कर दिया गया है। अतः ( यह अभिप्राय समझना चाहिये कि ) जिस कारण उस देहधारीअज्ञानीसे समस्त कर्मोंका पूर्णतया त्याग किया जाना सम्भव नहीं है? इसलिये जो तत्त्वज्ञानरहित अधिकारी? नित्यकर्मोंका अनुष्ठान करता हुआ उन कर्मोंके फलका त्यागी है? अर्थात् कर्मफलकी वासनामात्रको छोड़नेवाला है? वह कर्म करनेवाला होनेपर भी स्तुतिके अभिप्रायसे त्यागी कहा जाता है। सुतरां यह सिद्ध हुआ कि देहात्माभिमानसे रहित परमार्थज्ञानीके द्वारा ही निःशेषभावसे कर्मसंन्यास किया जा सकता है।

Having stated the possibility of renunciation of all actions for the knower of Self, He introduces the subsequent verse as a statement of reason for its impossibility for one dependent on that (ignorant/body-identified) — 'Yaḥ punaḥ'.

He whose knowledge of agency in the Self is not contradicted is ignorant, and his state is that-ness (ignorance), by that (ignorance) — is the meaning (of 'abādhitātmakartṛtvavijñānatayā')? To show this meaning, He states the reason for impossibility of renunciation of all actions for the ignorant — this is the construction. 'Yasmāt' (Since) connects with 'Tasmāt' (Therefore) in the answer.

Doubting that even for the discriminator, being a bearer of body, qualification for action would apply due to sameness of 'Dehabhṛt-tva' (bearing a body) — He says 'Na hi'. Qualification for agency, performance of action preceded by that, by that — is the meaning. For the knower, even though bearing the body, there is absence of identification with it — this is the meaning of the word 'Ataḥ'.

Making the stated unsuitability of renunciation of all actions for the ignorant the reason, he states the resultant — 'Tasmāt'.

Doubting that calling the performer of action a 'Tyagi' is unjustified — He says 'Karmyapi'. The statement of 'Tyagi' even for a performer of action due to abandonment of fruit is for the praise of abandonment of fruit, this is the meaning.

For whom then is renunciation of all actions possible — doubting thus, for one possessing discrimination, dispassion etc. and devoid of body identification — he concludes this statement — 'Tasmāt'.

So thus, having displayed the qualification for renunciation of all actions — primary Sannyasa — for the pure-minded one possessing Sattvic abandonment; for the qualified, who being identified with body is 'Dehabhṛt' — ignorant, having uncontradicted knowledge of agency of Self is of determined intellect 'I am the doer', since abandonment of all actions is impossible, his qualification is only in performance of enjoined action by abandoning fruit of action, not in abandonment — to show this meaning He says — 'Na hi'.

'Hi' — because, 'dehabhṛtā' — he supports, bears the body as his own Self, so 'Dehabhṛt' — possessing body identification — by that ignorant one, 'aśeṣataḥ' — entirely, 'sarvāṇi karmāṇi' — all actions — 'tyaktum' — to renounce — 'na śakyate' (is not possible).

Therefore, whatever ignorant body-bearer qualified person performing enjoined actions is 'tatphalatyāgī' — renouncer of only the desire for fruit of action — 'sa tyāgī' — he is Tyagi — 'ityabhidhīyate' (is thus called).

Even being a performer of action, 'Tyagi' — this is said with the intention of praise. And thus, renunciation of all actions is possible to be done by the seer of supreme truth devoid of body identification — this is the idea.

Another meaning of Tyaga is not proper, so He says — 'Na hi'.

Restating the secondary Sattvic abandonment itself, He states its purpose by two [verses] — 'Na hi'.

'Dehabhṛtā' — by the body-identified one; 'hi' — because; 'aśeṣataḥ' — to abandon actions 'na śakyam' — is impossible. Due to the contingency of loss of life-sustenance.

Therefore, being qualified, he who is 'habituated to abandoning fruit of action'. The word 'tu' is in the sense of 'eva'. He 'eva' (alone) is called Tyagi.

But he who is capable of abandoning actions entirely, the seer of supreme truth, he is the primary Tyagi, this is the meaning.

'Na hi dehabhṛtā' — by one bearing a body, actions 'aśeṣataḥ' — to abandon is [not] possible; because eating, drinking etc. for sustaining the body and actions connected to that are unavoidable; and for that sake performance of great sacrifices etc. is unavoidable.

He who 'tu' (however) is 'phalatyāgī' in those actions like great sacrifices etc., he alone is called 'Tyāgī' in scriptures like 'By Tyaga alone some attained immortality' [Mahana. 8.14].

'Phalatyāgī' — this is demonstrative; abandoner of fruit, agency, and attachment to action — thus from the beginning 'Proclaimed as threefold'.

Objection: Actions — Agnihotra, Darshapurnamasa, Jyotishtoma etc. and great sacrifices etc. — are enjoined by scriptures as related to fruits like heaven etc. Even for Nitya and Naimittika, the injunction is indeed related to fruit like 'Prajapatya world for householders' [Vi. Pu. 1.6.37]. Therefore, in the performance of actions understood as having the nature of means to those fruits, like sowing seeds etc., the connection with desirable and undesirable fruit is unavoidable even for unexpected fruit; therefore, being of fruit opposed to liberation, action is not to be performed by the seeker of liberation?

Therefore He states the answer —

Objection: Renunciation of all actions is better than such renunciation of fruit of action, in that case due to absence of distraction of action, establishment in knowledge is accomplished easily, to that He says — 'Na'.

'Dehabhṛtā' — by one identified with body as Self, to abandon all actions entirely is 'na hi' (not indeed) possible.

That has been said — 'For no one ever remains even for a moment without doing action' [3.5] etc.

Therefore he who, while doing actions indeed, is 'karmaphalatyāgī', he alone is called 'primary Tyagi'.

Following the elaboration of the logic propounded by 'Niyatasya' [18.7] etc., by means of renunciation of fruit as an indicator, the previously stated threefold Sattvic abandonment also is concluded by the verse 'Na hi', so he says — 'Tadāha'.

Here 'Dehabhṛtā' (by the body-bearer) — is not a designation of merely any living being; because it would be useless. Therefore, the literal meaning of the parts [of the word] as the cause of impossibility of abandoning the nature of action is intended, with this intention he says — 'Dhriyamāṇaśarīreṇa' (by one bearing a body). 'Śakyam' (possible) — is in neuter gender and singular number because it refers to abandoning; or because of intending a general form.

He explains the impossibility caused by being a body-bearer — 'Dehadhāraṇārthānām' (of those meant for sustaining the body). Let those connected to it like earning wealth etc. be worldly, what about Scriptural [actions]? To this he says — 'Tadarthaṃ ca' (And for that sake).

To remove the doubt of abandonment of nature [of action] caused by the naturalness of Shruti, 'Yastu' etc. is said, with this intention he says — 'Yastu'. Regarding 'Abhidhīyate' (is called), to satisfy the expectation 'by whom?', he quotes the Shruti 'Tyāgenaaike' etc.

He strengthens the demonstrative nature [of the verse] as concluding the commenced topic — 'Trividhaḥ'.

कोई भी देहधारी जीवित प्राणी चाहे वह एक कोषीय जीव ही क्यों न हो समस्त कर्मों का त्याग नहीं कर सकता। कर्म तो जीवन का प्रतीक या लक्षण है। कर्म ही जीवनरूपी पुष्प की सुगन्ध है जहाँ कर्म नहीं है? वहाँ जीवन समाप्त समझा जाता है। कुछ कर्म किये बिना रहना भी अपने आप में एक कर्म ही है। शारीरिक और मानसिक क्रियाएं मरण पर्यन्त होती ही रहती हैं।अत हम देहधारियों को कर्म करने चाहिए या नहीं? ऐसा विकल्प ही संभव नहीं होता। परन्तु हमको कौन से कर्म और किस प्रकार उन्हें करना चाहिए? इस विषय में अवश्य ही विकल्प संभव है। गीता के उपदेशानुसार हमको अपने कर्तव्य कर्म ईश्वरार्पण की भावना से करने चाहिए।अज्ञानी जन देहादि अनात्म उपाधियों को ही अपना स्वरूप समझकर उसमें आसक्त होते हैं तथा उनके कर्मों का कर्ता भी स्वयं को ही मानते हैं। अत ऐसे लोग सात्त्विक त्याग नहीं कर पाते हैं। भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण का ऐसे लोगों को यह उपदेश है कि उनको कमसेकम कर्मफलों की आसक्ति त्याग कर कर्मों का आचरण परिश्रम? उत्साह एवं कुशलता के साथ करना चाहिए। कर्मफलत्यागी पुरुष ही वास्तव में त्यागी है? न कि कर्मों को त्यागने वाला व्यक्ति।इस त्याग का क्या प्रयोजन है सुनो

So right here, to decide the specific [truth], He presents the views — 'Tyājyam' etc. 'Doshavat' — possessing sin due to having violence etc. 'Tat' action is to be abandoned; not all [action] which has good fruit — thus some think there is a distinction in Tyaga, like those holding Sankhya views.

Others, entered into the garb of Mimamsakas... 'For the purpose of sacrifice [violence] is understood from scripture'. And by the logic 'Therefore that which is Vedic violence...' etc., violence which is part of the procedure is not violence at all. Because the general scripture 'Do not kill' is annulled there, Syena etc. only is violence. 'And the affix of the bhāvanā is compliant in the part of the fruit'. Therefore one should not abandon others even if connected with violence etc. Those who take refuge solely in scripture for division of what is to be done and not done think they are 'Pandits'. ||3|| From 'Niścayam' etc. up to 'Abhidhīyate'.

But there, this is the determination — due to the variety of nature of Gunas defined before, of Tyaga itself being done by mental modification made of Sattva, Rajas, Tamas, appearing with that specific nature... in reality, Tyaga is the performance of actions by knowers of Supreme Brahman with equanimity in success and failure etc., by avoiding attachment and aversion, by lack of desire for fruit.

Therefore He says — having done Rajasic and Tamasic Tyaga, there is no connection with fruit [of Tyaga]. But from Sattvic Tyaga, the fruit is the protection of the meaning of scripture. Again, for the sage who has abandoned the grasp of the collection of Gunas, the statement of 'Tyaga' in truth is reasonable.

Objection: 'Thus, O Partha' — by this the Lord marked His own doctrine with certainty; therefore why is it said 'For not by a body-bearer'? To this he says — 'Anya'.

The meaning of Tyaga characterized by renunciation of all actions is the meaning of the word Tyaga.

[This is] for the refutation of the seed of the opponent's view — this is the remainder.

So thus, renunciation of all actions is possible for the knower of Self because absence of attachment and aversion which are causes of engagement in action has been stated; now the reason for the impossibility of abandonment of action for the ignorant is stated — 'Na hi'.

With the pride 'I am human, I am Brahmin, I am householder' etc. which is uncontradicted, he 'bibharti' — supports — the body, which is of the form of Varna and Ashrama causing qualification for action, the locus of agency and enjoyment etc., the aggregate of gross and subtle body and senses; by the force of beginningless ignorance and impressions, seeing it as capable of transaction, though imagined and untrue as true, though different from self as non-different from self, he supports and nourishes it — thus 'Dehabhṛt'; whose body-identification causing qualification for action is uncontradicted; by that ignorant body-bearer devoid of discriminative knowledge, constantly engaging in actions due to fullness of attachment and aversion causing engagement in action, to abandon actions 'aśeṣataḥ' — entirely — 'hi' — because — 'na śakyam' — is not possible. Because of the impossibility of abandoning the effect when the causal collection exists.

Therefore, whatever ignorant qualified person, even while performing actions for purification of mind, is by the Lord's compassion a renouncer of immediate fruit. The word 'tu' is to indicate his rarity. He is called 'Tyāgī'. By secondary usage for the sake of praise, even though he is a non-renouncer.

But renunciation of all actions is possible to be done by a body-bearer only by being a seer of supreme truth — therefore he alone is Tyagi by primary usage, this is the intention.

Objection: In abandonment of fruit of action, what is the purpose of doing it (action)? To this He says — 'Na hi'.

'Dehabhṛtā' — by one having superimposition of body — to abandon actions entirely is not possible. 'Hi' — this meaning is indeed proper. In superimposition of body, due to expectation of fruit and expectation of the world, how is abandonment to be done?

Because 'yastu' — he who again is abandoner of fruit of action, not desiring the fruit of actions performed, he is called 'Tyāgī'.

'Na hi' — because 'dehabhṛtā' — he supports the body so he is Dehabhṛt — one possessing identification of body as Self is called 'Dehabhṛt'; not the discriminator, for he has been removed from qualification for agency by 'Knows Him as indestructible' [2.21] etc.

Therefore by that Dehabhṛt ignorant one 'na śakyam' — it is not possible — 'tyaktum' — to renounce — actions 'aśeṣataḥ' — entirely.

Therefore 'yastu' — whatever ignorant qualified person performing Nitya actions is 'karmaphalatyāgī' — renouncer of only desire for fruit of action — 'sa tyāgī' — he is Tyagi — is thus called, even being a performer of action — this is with the intention of praise.

Therefore, only by the seer of supreme truth, by the non-body-bearer, by one devoid of body-self identification, is renunciation of all actions possible to be done.

What then is that purpose? Which would come from renunciation of all actions? It is stated —

He states the characteristic of such a person — 'Na dveṣṭi'. The Sattva-pervaded Tyagi, intelligent, regarding 'akuśalam' — action of undesirable fruit; and in 'kuśale' — action of desirable fruit like heaven etc. — 'na anuṣajjate' (does not get attached); because of having fruit other than the abandoned Self-happiness; and because of having abandoned agency.

Here 'akuśala' action is stated intending the inadvertent one. 'Not one not desisted from bad conduct, not unpeaceful, not uncomposed. Nor one with unpeaceful mind can obtain Him by wisdom' [Katho. 2.24; Na. Pa. 9.19; Maho. 4.69] — thus because of hearing of non-attainment of Self-happiness even by knowledge for the inadvertent one not desisted from bad conduct. Therefore, abandonment of agency, attachment, and fruits in action is Scriptural? But not abandonment by nature — thus.

He states that — 'Na hi'. 'Na hi' — by one bearing a body, actions can be abandoned entirely — in this sense 'śakyam' is an indeclinable. Because actions like eating, drinking etc. for sustaining the body and those connected with it are unavoidable; and for that sake great sacrifices etc. action is also unavoidable indeed.

There, he who is abandoner of fruit in those actions like sacrifice etc. — 'fruit' is an indicator of agency and mineness also — he alone is called 'Tyāgī' in 'By Tyaga alone some attained immortality' [Mahana. 8.14; Kaiva. 2] etc.

न not? हि verily? देहभृता by an embodied being? शक्यम् possible? त्यक्तुम् to abandon? कर्माणि actions? अशेषतः entirely? यः who? तु but? कर्मफलत्यागी relinisher of the fruits of actions? सः he? त्यागी relinisher? इति thus? अभिधीयते is called.Commentary He who has assumed a human body and yet grumbles at having to perform actions is verily a fool. Can fire that is endowed with heat as its natural property ever think of getting rid of it So long as you are living in this body you cannot entirely relinish action. Lord Krishna says to Arjuna Nor can anyone? even for an instant remain actionless for helplessly is everyone driven to action by the alities born of Nature (Cf.III.5). Nature (and your own nature? too) will urge you to do actions. You will have to abandon the idea of agency and the fruits of actions. Then you are ite safe. No action will bind you.The ignorant man who identifies himself with the body and who thinks that he is himself the doer of all actions should not abandon actions. It is impossible for him to relinish actions. He will have to perform all the prescribed duties while relinishing their fruits.Dehabhrita A wearer of the body An embodied being? i.e.? he who identifies himself with the body. A man who has discrimination between the Real and the unreal? the Eternal and the transient? cannot be called a bodywearer? because he does not think that he is the doer of actions -- vide chapter II.21 (He who knows Him Who is indestructible? eternal? unborn? undiminishing -- how can that man slay? O Arjuna? or cause to be slain).When the ignorant man who is alified for action does the prescribed duties? relinishing the desire for the fruits of his actions? he is called a Tyagi? although he is active. This title Tyagi is given to him for the sake of courtesy.The relinishment of all actions is possible only for him who has attained Selfrealisation and who is? therefore? not a wearer of the body? i.e.? does not hink that the body is the Self. (Cf.III.5)

Deha-bhrta, for one who holds on to a body-one who maintains (bibharti) a body (deha) is called a deha-bhrt. One who has self-indentification with the body is called a deha-bhrt, but not a so a man of discrimination; for he has been excluded from the eligibility for agentship by such texts as, 'He who knows this One is indestructible৷৷.' etc. Hence, for that unenlightened person who holds on to the body, he, since; it is na, not; sakyam, possible; tyaktum, to give up, renounce; karmani, actions; asesatah, entirely, totally; therefore the ignorant person who is competent (for rites and duties), yah, who; tu, on the other hand; karma-phala-tyagi, renounces results of actions, relinishes only the hankering for the results of actions while performing the nityakarmas; sah, he; is abhidhiyate, called; tyagi iti, a man of renunciation-even though he continues to be a man of rites and duties. This is said by way of eulogy.
Therefore total renunciation of actions is possible only for one who has realized the supreme Truth, who does not hold on to the body, and who is devoid of the idea that the body is the Self.
Again, what is that purpose which is accomplished through renunciation of all actions? This is being stated:

It is impossible for one who has a body and has to nourish it. 'to abandon action entirely'; for eating, drinking etc., reired for nourshing the body and other acts connected therewith are unavoidable. And for the same reason the five great sacrifices etc., are also indispensable. He who has given up the fruits of the five great sacrifices, is said to have renounced; this is referred to in the Srutis such as: 'Only through renunciation do some obtain immortality' (Ma. Na., 8.14). Renunciation of fruits of actions is illustrative; it implies much more. It implies one who has renounced the fruits, agency and attachment to works, as the topic has been begun with the declaration: 'For abandonment (Tyaga) is declard to be of three kinds' (18.4).
This statement may be estioned in the following manner: 'Agnihotra, the full moon and new moon sacrifices, Jyotistoma etc., and also the five great sacrifices are enjoined by the Sastras only for the attainment of their results like heaven. They are not purposeless. Even the injunction with regard to obligatory and occasional ceremonies is enjoined because they yield results, as implied in the following passage: "For householders, Prajapatya ceremony" (V.P., 1.6.37). Therefore, as the performance of actions has to be understood as a means for attaining their respective results, the accruing of agreeable and disagreeable results is inevitable, even though they are performed without any desire for fruits, just as a seed sown must grow into a tree and bear fruit. Hence, actions ought not to be performed by an aspirant for release, because the results are incompatible with release. Sri Krsna answers such objections: